The American conservative support base

[Darth Wong]

Clearly raving racists? Can you prove that? It takes more than a vote on a meaningless referendum to prove that all -or even most- of the 250,000 voters were racists. Barry Goldwater was against the Civil Rights Act, but he was FAR from a bigot.

So you figure that when someone votes to keep interracial marriage illegal, he's not a raving racist?

I don't dismiss a quarter million voters. I dismiss you for your bullshit claim that 250,000 is 30% of 2,500,000.

OK, so sue me for getting my terminology wrong. It's only 40% of the people who voted. So what? How does this change the fact that you have not a shred of evidence to indicate that a vote would go the same way in other states, despite all of the mitigating factors you mention still being applicable? You are taking the ONLY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE and saying "nope, I think it doesn't mean anything".

A claim I never made.

Bullshit; you claim that it is wrong to say that these states are more racist than others, even though they have clearly distinguished themselves through actions such as this.

So not only did you plagiarize from this article:

I was making a post on a subject, not submitting an academic paper, jackass. This was a listing of facts, not a creative work. There's no need to give proper cites, particularly when I couldn't remember where that came from in the first place (it was actually copied from an old post elsewhere on this forum).

But you made damn sure to limit your plagiarism to those paragraphs that, out of context, made your point -while leaving out the part about Oregon, which didn't. By the way, ":lol:" was the response I got when I phoned JBHE this morning and showed them these posts.

How does Oregon disprove anything, moron? Are you saying that Oregon is heavily urbanized? Facts would seem to disagree. Rural communities all over the US are more likely to be racist. The fact that the Southern states are more rural is probably what causes the elevated racism.

What evidence? Prejudice, false assumptions, faulty math -all compounded with plagiarism and other intellectual dishonesty- is all I've seen here from you.

Oh puh-lease, drop the false pretenses of academic superiority, jackass. Not once have I claimed that racism is restricted to the southern states; I only claimed that they're the worst ones, and they still are. And NOT ONCE HAVE YOU PROVIDED A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN RURAL COMMUNITIES AND RACISM, JACKASS. All you do is nitpick, attack, and look for excuses to dismiss all of the evidence against your position.

Let me summarize your pathetic argument for you, fucknut: "votes don't count as evidence, polls don't count as evidence, Martin Luther King didn't know anything about racism, and if you copied your facts from somebody else, then your argument is wrong" So what would it take to convince you? Oh yeah; it's IMPOSSIBLE, because there is obviously NO form of evidence which you would accept.

[Marksist]

The anger is at the idea that peoples beliefs are a "problem" the state needs to address.

I believe it is a problem the state needs to address. What happened to me all throughout high school (look what I wrote a few posts up), is not excusable, and the fact that teachers do this shit, and impose their religious, conservative, and "family values" beliefs on their students all the time in these small town public schools.

Also read Uranium's post earlier; these kind of teachings are allowed to happen because everyone around them in rural America pretty much believes the same things. So it will continue to be reinforced and just keep perpetuating itself so that rural America continues to stay stagnant.

I'm not saying the state should do anything about what the parents are teaching their kids (as they can teach them whatever beliefs they want, even if they are wrong and/or bigoted). But, I think the state needs to crack down on teachers doing this, because this shit has run rampant in small towns for a long time now. They should be teaching what the state education standards and guidelines laid out for them to teach, and not imposing their own beliefs onto their students just because nobody will do anything about it.

[Elfdart]

Clearly raving racists? Can you prove that? It takes more than a vote on a meaningless referendum to prove that all -or even most- of the 250,000 voters were racists. Barry Goldwater was against the Civil Rights Act, but he was FAR from a bigot.

So you figure that when someone votes to keep interracial marriage illegal, he's not a raving racist?

I don't dismiss a quarter million voters. I dismiss you for your bullshit claim that 250,000 is 30% of 2,500,000.

OK, so sue me for getting my terminology wrong. It's only 40% of the people who voted. So what? How does this change the fact that you have not a shred of evidence to indicate that a vote would go the same way in other states, despite all of the mitigating factors you mention still being applicable? You are taking the ONLY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE and saying "nope, I think it doesn't mean anything".

A claim I never made.

Bullshit; you claim that it is wrong to say that these states are more racist than others, even though they have clearly distinguished themselves through actions such as this.

So not only did you plagiarize from this article:

I was making a post on a subject, not submitting an academic paper, jackass. This was a listing of facts, not a creative work. There's no need to give proper cites, particularly when I couldn't remember where that came from in the first place (it was actually copied from an old post elsewhere on this forum).

As if that made any difference.

It's not just that you reprinted someone else's argument as your own, it's that you (or whoever wrote the original ) left out the results from Oregon's referendum -especially since Oregon, which is not part of the South, nor does it share the South's ugly history, had a similar result when SOME voters decided not to change a null and void part of state law.

But you made damn sure to limit your plagiarism to those paragraphs that, out of context, made your point -while leaving out the part about Oregon, which didn't. By the way, ":lol:" was the response I got when I phoned JBHE this morning and showed them these posts.

How does Oregon disprove anything, moron? Are you saying that Oregon is heavily urbanized? Facts would seem to disagree. Rural communities all over the US are more likely to be racist.

Prove it.

The fact that the Southern states are more rural is probably what causes the elevated racism.

Jesus Christ Almighty! In point of fact, the southern part of the country is pretty densely populated. Not in the same way as the Northeast or parts of the Pacific coast, but MUCH more so than the interior.

What evidence? Prejudice, false assumptions, faulty math -all compounded with plagiarism and other intellectual dishonesty- is all I've seen here from you.

Oh puh-lease, drop the false pretenses of academic superiority, jackass. Not once have I claimed that racism is restricted to the southern states; I only claimed that they're the worst ones, and they still are. And NOT ONCE HAVE YOU PROVIDED A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN RURAL COMMUNITIES AND RACISM, JACKASS.

It's not up to me to prove a negative, peckerhead.

Someone claims that small towns are inherently more bigoted and closed-minded than big cities, which anyone who has been to Houston Texas and Eureka California knows is bullshit. Someone then confuses small town with The South (talk about leaps in logic!) and assumes that southerners are inherently more racist than their counterparts elsewhere. The burden is on them to prove their assertions.

While it is true that the South has been historically more racist toward blacks, it would appear to any thinking person that this is a holdover from the days of slavery -not because of population density. After all, in 1776, Charleston SC was one of the largest (and by far the richest) cities in what is now the US. I think it still holds true today that a small town in Vermont or Washington won't have as much hostility toward blacks as Atlanta or New Orleans, even though both are large cities.

All you do is nitpick, attack, and look for excuses to dismiss all of the evidence against your position.

Oh, cry me a fucking ocean!

Let me summarize your pathetic argument for you, fucknut:

What, did JBHE come up with some new material for you?

"votes don't count as evidence, polls don't count as evidence, Martin Luther King didn't know anything about racism, and if you copied your facts from somebody else, then your argument is wrong" So what would it take to convince you? Oh yeah; it's IMPOSSIBLE, because there is obviously NO form of evidence which you would accept.

My position: Population density has little if any real bearing on the tolerance level in a community. Both big cities and small towns have long histories of violent intolerance. I'd like to see someone present some sort of reputable public opinion survey (like Pew or Gallup) of people's attitudes in different population densities and different regions.

What I've seen so far is anecdotal stories and your bullshit. When I point out the serious flaws in both your "facts" and logic, it's "nitpicking" and looking for excuses to dismiss them. When I respond to your flames, I'm the one who attacks. It's not my fault that so many of your claims -including authorship- are nonsense. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Since you tried (and failed) to summarize my position, it's only proper that I sum up yours:


WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

[Darth Wong]

So you figure that when someone votes to keep interracial marriage illegal, he's not a raving racist?

...

OK, so sue me for getting my terminology wrong. It's only 40% of the people who voted. So what? How does this change the fact that you have not a shred of evidence to indicate that a vote would go the same way in other states, despite all of the mitigating factors you mention still being applicable? You are taking the ONLY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE and saying "nope, I think it doesn't mean anything".

...

Bullshit; you claim that it is wrong to say that these states are more racist than others, even though they have clearly distinguished themselves through actions such as this.

...

I was making a post on a subject, not submitting an academic paper, jackass. This was a listing of facts, not a creative work. There's no need to give proper cites, particularly when I couldn't remember where that came from in the first place (it was actually copied from an old post elsewhere on this forum).

As if that made any difference.

It does. Copyright is extended to creative works. A collection of facts is not copyrightable. Copying a very factual statement of information is not considered plagiarism because it is not an "argument" or essay; it is just a collection of facts. And this entire line of thought is an ad-hominem, using it as an excuse to dismiss the argument itself rather than addressing it. The various arguments you chose to IGNORE when replying make this very clear.

It's not just that you reprinted someone else's argument as your own, it's that you (or whoever wrote the original ) left out the results from Oregon's referendum -especially since Oregon, which is not part of the South, nor does it share the South's ugly history, had a similar result when SOME voters decided not to change a null and void part of state law.

I see you also ignored the part where I acknowledged that the Southern states are not the only racist ones. This thread is about RURAL attitudes, not exclusively Southern ones. The fact that the South is more rural than the North often makes it seem more like the two are conjoined but they are not.

How does Oregon disprove anything, moron? Are you saying that Oregon is heavily urbanized? Facts would seem to disagree. Rural communities all over the US are more likely to be racist.

Prove it.

How? You ignore votes, you ignore polls ... what would you accept as evidence? You hold up Oregon as some kind of disproof of my argument, when it is anything but. How many big urban cities are there in Oregon? Oh yeah, ZIP.

The fact that the Southern states are more rural is probably what causes the elevated racism.

Jesus Christ Almighty! In point of fact, the southern part of the country is pretty densely populated. Not in the same way as the Northeast or parts of the Pacific coast, but MUCH more so than the interior.

And what makes you think that I have some great love for the flyover states, moron? Your whole argument is "A is not bad because B is just as bad". NO FUCKING SHIT, ASSHOLE.

You've tried to take a simple idea about rural America being the support base of social conservatism and without really addressing or refuting it at all, distort it into "the only racists in America live in the Deep South", which is so loosely related to the original argument that it shouldn't even be in the same thread. And then you try to support this bullshit by saying "you copied facts from somebody! Your whole argument is wrong!" and dismissing the only forms of evidence which are available.

It's not up to me to prove a negative, peckerhead.

Then you argue that there is no racism in Alabama? There is no question of whether this phenomenon exists, so blow me.

Someone claims that small towns are inherently more bigoted and closed-minded than big cities, which anyone who has been to Houston Texas and Eureka California knows is bullshit. Someone then confuses small town with The South (talk about leaps in logic!) and assumes that southerners are inherently more racist than their counterparts elsewhere. The burden is on them to prove their assertions.

Yeah, I guess Martin Luther King was completely wrong, abd the whole "southern slavocrat civil war" thing was just a big misunderstanding

While it is true that the South has been historically more racist toward blacks, it would appear to any thinking person that this is a holdover from the days of slavery -not because of population density. After all, in 1776, Charleston SC was one of the largest (and by far the richest) cities in what is now the US. I think it still holds true today that a small town in Vermont or Washington won't have as much hostility toward blacks as Atlanta or New Orleans, even though both are large cities.

And you base this assessment on ...?

Oh, cry me a fucking ocean!
...
What, did JBHE come up with some new material for you?

Wow, such devastating counter-arguments. I'm soooo impressed.

My position: Population density has little if any real bearing on the tolerance level in a community.

So you admitted previously that small towns are more "conformist", yet you deny that they are less tolerant, even though social conformism and social tolerance are FUCKING OPPOSITES. Thanks for clarifying, retard.

Both big cities and small towns have long histories of violent intolerance. I'd like to see someone present some sort of reputable public opinion survey (like Pew or Gallup) of people's attitudes in different population densities and different regions.

You've already dismissed both surveys and votes as admissible evidence; why would you accept one now? Or are you saying you're only prepared to accept a survey when it says what you want to hear? Sort of like your laughable stolen-concept fallacy of ignoring votes on crucial issues of racism while pretending that voting in a politician who eventually voted for civil rights (even if that was not his original election platform) somehow makes all the citizens of a state into social liberals?

What I've seen so far is anecdotal stories and your bullshit. When I point out the serious flaws in both your "facts" and logic, it's "nitpicking" and looking for excuses to dismiss them. When I respond to your flames, I'm the one who attacks. It's not my fault that so many of your claims -including authorship- are nonsense. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

More hot air. I've presented numerous facts, and whether they were copied from another site or not is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the fact that they demolish your position. None of my argument is based on "anecdotal stories", and your sad attempt to pretend that it is merely proves your dishonesty. Hundreds of thousands of people in low-population states, constituting large percentages of the voters, voted for outright racism.

Since you tried (and failed) to summarize my position, it's only proper that I sum up yours:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

In other words, rather than seriously attempt to assess the argument, you simply act childish.

The only one here who has presented ANY numbers to support his case is me. Your rhetorical games merely get louder and more strident as you sink into the depths of your own bullshit.

[Aeolus]

The anger is at the idea that peoples beliefs are a "problem" the state needs to address.

.
.

I'm not saying the state should do anything about what the parents are teaching their kids (as they can teach them whatever beliefs they want, even if they are wrong and/or bigoted). But, I think the state needs to crack down on teachers doing this, because this shit has run rampant in small towns for a long time now. They should be teaching what the state education standards and guidelines laid out for them to teach, and not imposing their own beliefs onto their students just because nobody will do anything about it.

Why, your trying to impose your beliefs on them.

[Mayabird]

The anger is at the idea that peoples beliefs are a "problem" the state needs to address.

.
.

I'm not saying the state should do anything about what the parents are teaching their kids (as they can teach them whatever beliefs they want, even if they are wrong and/or bigoted). But, I think the state needs to crack down on teachers doing this, because this shit has run rampant in small towns for a long time now. They should be teaching what the state education standards and guidelines laid out for them to teach, and not imposing their own beliefs onto their students just because nobody will do anything about it.

Why, your trying to impose your beliefs on them.

If his beliefs include making the teachers actually teach what they're supposed to instead of turning Biology into Sunday School during the week and Government into "Let's all watch Bill O'Reilly and mindlessly agree with everything his says", then I'm all for imposing his beliefs on them.

[Jalinth]

Unfortunately, constitutions are symbolic documents - even if parts are essentially "dead" because of court rulings. Having states still stating that some skin colours are better than others is unacceptable. Imagine being in Germany post WWII and the constitution stated "All Jews are evil" (note - this is hypothetical only) - wouldn't you want this filth gone from the document that describes the goals, values and structure of your state even if the courts had quashed its legal effect?

I can understand not cleaning up all of the various laws (although I really do think governments need an "anti" Legislature every 40/50 years or so that simply removes old and useless laws.) since they are dead and of no force and effective.

[Aeolus]

.
.

I'm not saying the state should do anything about what the parents are teaching their kids (as they can teach them whatever beliefs they want, even if they are wrong and/or bigoted). But, I think the state needs to crack down on teachers doing this, because this shit has run rampant in small towns for a long time now. They should be teaching what the state education standards and guidelines laid out for them to teach, and not imposing their own beliefs onto their students just because nobody will do anything about it.

Why, your trying to impose your beliefs on them.

If his beliefs include making the teachers actually teach what they're supposed to instead of turning Biology into Sunday School during the week and Government into "Let's all watch Bill O'Reilly and mindlessly agree with everything his says", then I'm all for imposing his beliefs on them.

1st Education is a STATE right, not the federal goverments.

2nd Schools serve the parents who's children they teach. If you do not like what your childs school is teaching or how they teach...get involved. But that does not give you a right to go tell other parents what to think. If people have a difference of opinion from you that does not make them a problem for the state to deal with.

3rd I am well aware that small communities are more conservative than larger citys...on average. Yes they should obey federal laws concerning civil rights The fourteenth amendment is very specific on this. But they still have a fundemental right to free speech under the first amendment. Which is what you are really trying to take away when you want the state to deal with the "problem" of conservative small towns.

[Darth Wong]

Unfortunately, constitutions are symbolic documents - even if parts are essentially "dead" because of court rulings. Having states still stating that some skin colours are better than others is unacceptable. Imagine being in Germany post WWII and the constitution stated "All Jews are evil" (note - this is hypothetical only) - wouldn't you want this filth gone from the document that describes the goals, values and structure of your state even if the courts had quashed its legal effect?

You would think so. I saw editorials in Alabama newspapers urging people to realize what it says about their state to have such an onerous and morally reprehensible statement in their constitution. However, a large percentage of the populace did not seem to agree with them.

I can understand not cleaning up all of the various laws (although I really do think governments need an "anti" Legislature every 40/50 years or so that simply removes old and useless laws.) since they are dead and of no force and effective.

One of the other things people neglect is that some of the bizarre repressive laws (such as the bans on sex toys which are in force in some of the southern states) have actually been passed recently.

[Marksist]

2nd Schools serve the parents who's children they teach. If you do not like what your childs school is teaching or how they teach...get involved. But that does not give you a right to go tell other parents what to think. If people have a difference of opinion from you that does not make them a problem for the state to deal with.

I'm actually an education major myself (Music Ed. to be specific). And, I will be getting involved as a teacher in about 3-4 more years. And as I said in my post a while back I really regret during high school not doing anything as a student to all the civil rights violations that occured at my school

Sunshine State Standards

The link above is to the Sunshine State Standards for education in the state of Florida. This is the outline that all teachers in the state must follow. No where in there does it say that we should be forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh in an American History class ("discoveries" through 1950). Nowhere in there does it say that Evolution is only a "theory" and that if we wanted to know more we should join the Christian club and go to the Science teacher's church. It doesn't say that prayers should be condoned at school ceremonies (I believe there was a court case in Texas about this, where it was deemed unconstitutional for a girl to lead a prayer at a high school football event.. dont remember exactly what is was though). So, the people of my state legislature approved the standards for education, and they did not include religious and conservative indoctrination in there. So yes, when the school teachers decide to add those things in, yes the state should stop them. But, in most cases, they do not know it is happening because of rural isolationism.

[Aeolus]

Sunshine State Standards

The link above is to the Sunshine State Standards for education in the state of Florida. This is the outline that all teachers in the state must follow. No where in there does it say that we should be forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh in an American History class ("discoveries" through 1950). Nowhere in there does it say that Evolution is only a "theory" and that if we wanted to know more we should join the Christian club and go to the Science teacher's church. It doesn't say that prayers should be condoned at school ceremonies (I believe there was a court case in Texas about this, where it was deemed unconstitutional for a girl to lead a prayer at a high school football event.. dont remember exactly what is was though). So, the people of my state legislature approved the standards for education, and they did not include religious and conservative indoctrination in there. So yes, when the school teachers decide to add those things in, yes the state should stop them. But, in most cases, they do not know it is happening because of rural isolationism.

Schools should obey thier own rules but
I think we both know that Uranium235 had a bit more in mind...."

Basically, there are a lot of people living in small towns and even in places where the next neighbor is over a mile away, where communities can effectively enforce strict moral codes and more or less brainwash most of the children they raise into their way of thinking. It's real easy to convince most people that your way is the right way when they either never have the opportunity to see anything else, or when much of the outside world is portrayed as 'deviancy pushed by the Devil and you're much better off staying with your family and prayin' to God at the local church every morning lest your soul go straight to the fires of Hell'.

So, given that such environments are conducive to conservative thinking, and that such environments are abundantly prolific in America (hello vast tracts of rural land), how should this problem be addressed"

[sketerpot]

If his beliefs include making the teachers actually teach what they're supposed to instead of turning Biology into Sunday School during the week and Government into "Let's all watch Bill O'Reilly and mindlessly agree with everything his says", then I'm all for imposing his beliefs on them.

1st Education is a STATE right, not the federal goverments.

Far too often "state's rights" seems to mean "giving up our rights to the state". And where was the federal government mentioned?

2nd Schools serve the parents who's children they teach. If you do not like what your childs school is teaching or how they teach...get involved. But that does not give you a right to go tell other parents what to think. If people have a difference of opinion from you that does not make them a problem for the state to deal with.

Say, that's a great idea! Let's teach Creationism in the public schools because a majority wants to impose their religious beliefs upon everyone using a government institution for which everyone is forced to pay! I wonder why we even have first amendment rights, considering that the majority has a hard time oppressing itself, and of course they can oppress minorities as much as they like! And while we're at it, let's turn Government class from a study of the government into a propaganda machine feeding the political beliefs of the local majority to a captive audience!

Oh wait, wasn't that exactly what you're defending? Man, looks like my attempt at hyperbole was a flop.

3rd I am well aware that small communities are more conservative than larger citys...on average. Yes they should obey federal laws concerning civil rights The fourteenth amendment is very specific on this. But they still have a fundemental right to free speech under the first amendment. Which is what you are really trying to take away when you want the state to deal with the "problem" of conservative small towns.

Ah, freedom of speech! Let's look at what the first amendment didn't say:

Employees of the government have the absolute right to do whatever the fuck they want.

It's these teachers' jobs to give their students an education. I don't think that Creationism and O'Reilly count as education, and so something should be done. Nobody forced these people to become teachers, and it doesn't conflict with the first amendment if we ask them to do their jobs properly.

[Aeolus]

It's these teachers' jobs to give their students an education. I don't think that Creationism and O'Reilly count as education, and so something should be done. Nobody forced these people to become teachers, and it doesn't conflict with the first amendment if we ask them to do their jobs properly.

I don't believe in creationism either and if I had a child in a school teaching it I would go apesh*t. That does not give me the right to force other parents to agree with me. I have the right and perhaps the obligation to try and change thier minds but they have an equal right to try and change mine. You have the right to try and change your local schools but what gives you the right to tell other localitys how to run thier affairs or raise thier children?
This whole thread started because uranium235 stated that rural conservatism was a problem the state needed to address. When infact it is simply a belief structure he does not agree with. It is not a problem the state has any business "dealing with"

[Aeolus]

Far too often "state's rights" seems to mean "giving up our rights to the state". And where was the federal government mentioned?

Perhaps it would have been better to say local vs nonlocal

[sketerpot]

1st Education is a STATE right, not the federal goverments.

Far too often "state's rights" seems to mean "giving up our rights to the state". And where was the federal government mentioned?

Perhaps it would have been better to say local vs nonlocal

It probably would have been better, but the rest of my post still stands. I don't like it when people give carte blanche to teachers because of "freedom of speech", or when local governments (there, I'm saying local too) are given free reign to step on people regardless of individual rights, and this is somehow okay because they're local.

I don't believe in creationism either and if I had a child in a school teaching it I would go apesh*t. That does not give me the right to force other parents to agree with me. I have the right and perhaps the obligation to try and change thier minds but they have an equal right to try and change mine. You have the right to try and change your local schools but what gives you the right to tell other localitys how to run thier affairs or raise thier children?

This isn't about changing parents' minds, it's about good schools and individual rights. You think it's okay to teach creationism in schools as long as it's being pushed on someone else's unwilling children? You think that the only school that should be dealt with is your local one? There are people who are stuck in crappy little towns where the majority is into that shit, but can they change it? No way in hell! Sure, it violates their rights, and sure it's the opposite of education, but what can they do? That's what the (apparently unpopular) idea of "majority rule, minority rights" came from.

This whole thread started because uranium235 stated that rural conservatism was a problem the state needed to address. When infact it is simply a belief structure he does not agree with. It is not a problem the state has any business "dealing with"

But the subconversation we're engaged in started when Marksist talked about public schools, and you said, "Why, your trying to impose your beliefs on them." Our good Uranium isotope may have been talking in general, but I'm not. And you're just changing the subject.

And you should read up on BBCode, specifically the section on quoting; you quote Mayabird as saying things that I said, and you have some opening quote tags dangling out in front there.

[Aeolus]

It probably would have been better, but the rest of my post still stands. I don't like it when people give carte blanche to teachers because of "freedom of speech", or when local governments (there, I'm saying local too) are given free reign to step on people regardless of individual rights, and this is somehow okay because they're local.

and

This isn't about changing parents' minds, it's about good schools and individual rights. You think it's okay to teach creationism in schools as long as it's being pushed on someone else's unwilling children? You think that the only school that should be dealt with is your local one? There are people who are stuck in crappy little towns where the majority is into that shit, but can they change it? No way in hell! Sure, it violates their rights, and sure it's the opposite of education, but what can they do? That's what the (apparently unpopular) idea of "majority rule, minority rights" came from.

I never said creationism was okay,

Yes they should obey federal laws concerning civil rights The fourteenth amendment is very specific on this

Creationism is crossing the church/state line but as long as they don't stray across that line I don't see why nonlocals have any right to coerce locals on how they educate thier children. I do concede that when the constitutional rights of the minority in a small community are clearly violated nonlocals can intervene. What I am opposed to is the idea that conservative or liberal ideas are a problem for the state to solve. The reason this subconversation started was ....my response to uranium235's questioning to strong response his question recieved and Marksist's response to that.

[Darth Wong]

Creationism is crossing the church/state line but as long as they don't stray across that line I don't see why nonlocals have any right to coerce locals on how they educate thier children.

Why not? Just for the sake of argument, let's leave aside the religious angle and create a thought experiment: let's say that some physics teacher in Nowhere, Alabama decides to teach his students that nuclear reactors can explode like the Hiroshima bomb if the coolant system fails. This is completely, totally wrong, but could arguably be construed as a political issue, since nuclear power is a political issue. A non-local authority would be perfectly justified in disciplining this teacher for failing to do his job or possibly attempting to use it as a platform for political activism (or both).

I do concede that when the constitutional rights of the minority in a small community are clearly violated nonlocals can intervene. What I am opposed to is the idea that conservative or liberal ideas are a problem for the state to solve. The reason this subconversation started was ....my response to uranium235's questioning to strong response his question recieved and Marksist's response to that.

It's not a question of conservative or liberal ideas so much as the fact that teaching, like journalism, is theoretically supposed to be as impartial as possible. However, this ideal has been almost completely lost. Teachers freely use their classrooms as battlegrounds for political activism (abuse of position to advance personal agenda) and journalists think that "balanced" reporting means "let both sides take a turn". Worse yet, the idea of impartiality is grossly abused by people such as creationists who routinely interpret "impartial" to mean "Golden Mean" and argue that science classes have an obligation to take a middle ground between evolution (science) and creationism (anti-science).

But this is rather off-topic for this thread. In small towns, the real problem is not so much arguments like the one above (which is really what larger organizations such as the Southern Baptist Council use to justify their positions) but rather, the much smaller-scale phenomenon of dissenters to the established social order being shouted down and ostracized. Small-town employers can even be more abusive of employees, because they have a captive audience: in a small town where a handful of tool and die makers run the local industry (for example), even if you have a legitimate grievance against your employer you won't dare take him to court over it because you might win your case but you'll be blacklisted and you won't work in that town again. You'll have to move, and for a lot of these people, leaving the cradle is simply unthinkable.

[Aeolus]

Why not? Just for the sake of argument, let's leave aside the religious angle and create a thought experiment: let's say that some physics teacher in Nowhere, Alabama decides to teach his students that nuclear reactors can explode like the Hiroshima bomb if the coolant system fails. This is completely, totally wrong, but could arguably be construed as a political issue, since nuclear power is a political issue. A non-local authority would be perfectly justified in disciplining this teacher for failing to do his job or possibly attempting to use it as a platform for political activism (or both).

I think that example would be easy enough for local dissidents to refute.

[Darth Wong]

Why not? Just for the sake of argument, let's leave aside the religious angle and create a thought experiment: let's say that some physics teacher in Nowhere, Alabama decides to teach his students that nuclear reactors can explode like the Hiroshima bomb if the coolant system fails. This is completely, totally wrong, but could arguably be construed as a political issue, since nuclear power is a political issue. A non-local authority would be perfectly justified in disciplining this teacher for failing to do his job or possibly attempting to use it as a platform for political activism (or both).

I think that example would be easy enough for local dissidents to refute.

Now now, you're just looking for an excuse to avoid having to address the dilemma. Suppose no local dissidents refute it? It is perfectly reasonable to surmise that in this hypothetical town, nobody will rise up to challenge this teacher, and that most of the parents will think he's right (and don't tell me this is unrealistic; the scientific ignorance of Joe Average is not exactly a secret). So it might well come down to "non-locals", as you call them, challenging the "locals".

So what wins out? Academic standards or provincialism?

[Aeolus]

It's not a question of conservative or liberal ideas so much as the fact that teaching, like journalism, is theoretically supposed to be as impartial as possible. However, this ideal has been almost completely lost. Teachers freely use their classrooms as battlegrounds for political activism (abuse of position to advance personal agenda) and journalists think that "balanced" reporting means "let both sides take a turn". Worse yet, the idea of impartiality is grossly abused by people such as creationists who routinely interpret "impartial" to mean "Golden Mean" and argue that science classes have an obligation to take a middle ground between evolution (science) and creationism (anti-science).

conceded

But this is rather off-topic for this thread. In small towns, the real problem is not so much arguments like the one above (which is really what larger organizations such as the Southern Baptist Council use to justify their positions) but rather, the much smaller-scale phenomenon of dissenters to the established social order being shouted down and ostracized. Small-town employers can even be more abusive of employees, because they have a captive audience: in a small town where a handful of tool and die makers run the local industry (for example), even if you have a legitimate grievance against your employer you won't dare take him to court over it because you might win your case but you'll be blacklisted and you won't work in that town again. You'll have to move, and for a lot of these people, leaving the cradle is simply unthinkable.

That is simply the nature of small communities. People who dislike/don't fit in tend to move to big city's. People who want that life move to rural areas. I don't like living in small towns. I spent every summer for years in one. But people living in those communitys have every right to thier beliefs. The (justified) seige mentality they feel is a major reason the US is so polarized today. You have every right to say they're yokels or crackers. Many of them are, but they still have the right to local rule.

[Aeolus]

It's not a question of conservative or liberal ideas so much as the fact that teaching, like journalism, is theoretically supposed to be as impartial as possible. However, this ideal has been almost completely lost. Teachers freely use their classrooms as battlegrounds for political activism (abuse of position to advance personal agenda) and journalists think that "balanced" reporting means "let both sides take a turn". Worse yet, the idea of impartiality is grossly abused by people such as creationists who routinely interpret "impartial" to mean "Golden Mean" and argue that science classes have an obligation to take a middle ground between evolution (science) and creationism (anti-science).

conceded

But this is rather off-topic for this thread. In small towns, the real problem is not so much arguments like the one above (which is really what larger organizations such as the Southern Baptist Council use to justify their positions) but rather, the much smaller-scale phenomenon of dissenters to the established social order being shouted down and ostracized. Small-town employers can even be more abusive of employees, because they have a captive audience: in a small town where a handful of tool and die makers run the local industry (for example), even if you have a legitimate grievance against your employer you won't dare take him to court over it because you might win your case but you'll be blacklisted and you won't work in that town again. You'll have to move, and for a lot of these people, leaving the cradle is simply unthinkable.

That is simply the nature of small communities. People who dislike/don't fit in tend to move to big city's. People who want that life move to rural areas. I don't like living in small towns. I spent every summer for years in one. But people living in those communitys have every right to thier beliefs. The (justified) seige mentality they feel is a major reason the US is so polarized today. You have every right to say they're yokels or crackers. Many of them are, but they still have the right to local rule.

yikes how did I do that

[Darth Wong]

You have every right to say they're yokels or crackers. Many of them are, but they still have the right to local rule.

Why is "local rule" so important in its own right? Is this not precisely the argument once used by the southern slave-owners to argue that outsiders didn't have the right to tell them how to run their own plantations?

[Aeolus]

Why not? Just for the sake of argument, let's leave aside the religious angle and create a thought experiment: let's say that some physics teacher in Nowhere, Alabama decides to teach his students that nuclear reactors can explode like the Hiroshima bomb if the coolant system fails. This is completely, totally wrong, but could arguably be construed as a political issue, since nuclear power is a political issue. A non-local authority would be perfectly justified in disciplining this teacher for failing to do his job or possibly attempting to use it as a platform for political activism (or both).

I think that example would be easy enough for local dissidents to refute.

Now now, you're just looking for an excuse to avoid having to address the dilemma. Suppose no local dissidents refute it? It is perfectly reasonable to surmise that in this hypothetical town, nobody will rise up to challenge this teacher, and that most of the parents will think he's right (and don't tell me this is unrealistic; the scientific ignorance of Joe Average is not exactly a secret). So it might well come down to "non-locals", as you call them, challenging the "locals".

So what wins out? Academic standards or provincialism?

In such an open and shut case...Academic standards. The problem is most cases are not so easy to distinguish fact from politics

[Aeolus]

You have every right to say they're yokels or crackers. Many of them are, but they still have the right to local rule.

Why is "local rule" so important in its own right? Is this not precisely the argument once used by the southern slave-owners to argue that outsiders didn't have the right to tell them how to run their own plantations?

Local rule is a very important check on centralized power. Local communitys have a better understanding of thier needs and problems than a distant goverment. As for the South yes it was the argument they used. That hardly invalidates mine.

[Uraniun235]

The anger is at the idea that peoples beliefs are a "problem" the state needs to address.

When areas of research are being held back, like stem cell research, because of some people's irrational beliefs, areas of research which could yield great benefits for humanity, then damn straight it's a problem.

And, being from Oregon, I will attest to the fact that it is almost wholly a rural state, and that there are definitely racists and prudes out here. (I say prudes because more than one elementary school teacher withdrew their class in the middle of a matinee show of Anything Goes the high school was putting on... a show the principal of that very school took his three-year-old child to see.) There's also a joke that recently went around email inboxes saying the next reality TV show ought to be about a group of people who slapped a bunch of pro-gay and anti-gun bumper stickers on their car, and see who survived a trip through Eastern Oregon.

Then there's also the case of the old patriarchs in Philomath Oregon, a town of 3000, who completely shut down a major scholarship to the town's high school because there was a "gay/straight alliance" club at the high school. Gee, that sure is enlightened thinking! That town's already very economically depressed, and now even more kids from there might never have the opportunity to go to college... all because some of them dared to tolerate homosexuality. How enlightened.

My position: Population density has little if any real bearing on the tolerance level in a community.

Okay, so how would you explain the lesser degree of tolerance in the United States compared to other Western nations?

This whole thread started because uranium235 stated that rural conservatism was a problem the state needed to address. When infact it is simply a belief structure he does not agree with. It is not a problem the state has any business "dealing with"

HEY, DIPSHIT. SHUT THE FUCK UP.

I invite you to point out to me where I stated that the state should do something about it. Oh, wait, you fucking can't. In fact, I believe at one point I said that the solution might not even involve legislature.

Local rule is a very important check on centralized power. Local communitys have a better understanding of thier needs and problems than a distant goverment. As for the South yes it was the argument they used. That hardly invalidates mine.

I don't think anybody's advocating that every facet of local government be transferred to Federal hands; in fact, I'd oppose that on the grounds that I think it would be hideously inefficient. I don't even think the Federal government needs to take over the school boards; I think certain federally-mandated (and enforced; a law without teeth is almost better off not being a law at all) standards in curricula would be for the best.